[Grammar] adverb - Billy has asked sometimes for my advice.

[jutfrank]

First you you say that the object in ask somebody is indirect; then you ask what sense it can make to say that in Go and ask Sue, the object is indirect.

I wasn't clear, then. I meant that the object in ask somebody must be direct when it is the only object.

There also seems to be a contradiction in the parts I have coloured blue and red. Receiving is normally the sign of an indirect object.

I was thinking of 'receiving' as a sign of a direct object, not an indirect one. I meant receiving in the sense of being a patient of the action, not in the sense of receiving the thing referred to by the direct object. Like in Ask me a question, me is the receiver of the question, not the action expressed by the verb. Do you follow what I mean? I'm saying that in I beat Sue, Sue is the 'receiver' of the beating. Anyway, I see that the word 'receiving' is rather confusing so I'd rather not use it any more.

d. Go and ask Sue. ??? It seems to me that Sue is the direct object in that sentence.

Yes, that's what I said. Are you saying you agree or disagree? I thought you were saying that Sue is not the direct object.

This discussion is all very interesting, if a little confusing!

 

[jutfrank]

I see a flaw here.

1. Bill: Who(m) did John ask "What is your name"?
. .. Ben: He asked me.

2. John asked me my name.

I can't see any reason to consider 'me' in #1 'secondary'.
Nor can I in #2.

Using my own terminology, me is 'primary' in 1. and 'secondary' in 2. This is because in 1. there is only one object, so it has to be primary. In 2., there are two objects, so I was thinking of one (the direct one) as primary and the other (indirect one) as secondary.

 

[jutfrank]

So, could you please explain why 'me' is a direct object in "Billy has asked me for my advice," and an indirect object in "Billy has asked me a question"?

This comment led me and Phaedrus to think that you were seeing me as an indirect object in both sentences. Is that not the case?

 

[jutfrank]

I actually think they are both direct objects

Oh, I see. Okay, interesting.

 

[Phaedrus]

However, as (I think) I have pointed out before, I see no clear justification for saying that if there are two objects, one must be indirect.

As I see it, there are two direct objects in the sentence "Billy likes Sally and Tommy."

There are two indirect objects and one direct object in "Billy baked Sally and Tommy a cake."

And there are two indirect objects and two direct objects in "Billy told Sally and Tommy a joke and a story."

Of course, one could alternatively say that the conjuncts form a higher phrase such that there are only two phrasal objects even in that third example.

I have two objections (at the moment) to calling "me" and "a question" both direct objects in "Billy asked me a question."

One is that their positions can't be reversed:

Billy asked me a question.
*[strike]Billy asked a question me.[/strike]

The other is that only one can form the object of the preposition in the related prepositional construction:

Billy asked a question of me.
*[strike]Billy asked me of a question.[/strike]

If we adjusted the terminology and spoke of "primary" and "secondary," would that mean that we'd gotten rid of indirect objects or simply renamed them?

 

[TheParser]

I accept Quirk et al.'s view that "me" is an indirect object in a sentence like "Billy asked me to tie my shoes."

NOT A TEACHER

Here is the opinion of Paul Roberts in his Understanding Grammar (1954), pages 361 - 362:

"He asked me to go."

1. The phrase "me to go" is the direct object of "asked." (An infinitive and its subject.)



2. Professor Roberts says that "it is also reasonable to say that me is the indirect object of asked and to go the direct object of asked."

 

[HeartShape]

I like to point out there have been some misinterpretations in this post.

Anyway, what about this sentence now in comparison to 2 below?

1. Billy has asked me advice.
2. Billy has asked me for my advice.

Is sentence 1 grammatical? If this is grammatical this would make "me" direct object because "me" is giving advice not receiving advice. Come to think, this also applies to sentence 2 as well.

Compare:

1. I've sent Audrey a present. (direct=present) Audrey receives a present. Compare "me" receives advice? No.
2. I've sent a present to Audrey (indirect=audrey) with a preposition.

Actually, thinking it through again, I do actually think "me" is an indirect object and "advice" is the direct object in following grammar traditions.

1. Billy has asked me advice.
2. Billy has asked me for my advice.

Sentence 1 can be an elliptical construction and has the implicit meaning of sentence 2. Can we all agree on this?

 

[jutfrank]

If we adjusted the terminology and spoke of "primary" and "secondary," would that mean that we'd gotten rid of indirect objects or simply renamed them?

I was attempting to get away from grammatical terms, preferring to get at the semantics, where I'm more comfortable.

I can see that in Billy asked me a question, a question is the patient (or 'theme') but I can't figure out what semantic role me is playing. The way that makes most sense to me (at the moment) is that there are two themes (primary and secondary), which apparently match up with the grammatical categories of direct and indirect objects. I only use the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' for want of more precise and helpful terminology.

Billy was asked.
A question was asked.

If both of the above make sense, then it seems that ask is being used in a different sense in each case. In other words, there are different thematic relations at play. That's all I was saying in post #26.

Anyway, I can't add anything more of interest about the grammar.

 

[jutfrank]

1. Billy has asked me advice.
2. Billy has asked me for my advice.

Is sentence 1 grammatical?

No.

 

[TheParser]

If both of the above make sense, then it seems that ask is being used in a different sense in each case. In other words, there are different thematic relations at play.

NOT A TEACHER

Here are the opinions of three grammarians.

1. "He asked me a puzzling question."

a. Pence and Emery in their A Grammar of Present-Day English (1947 and 1963), page 48, say that in "one sense of ask, question is the direct object; in another sense of ask, me is the direct object."

2. "The driver asked me the time."

a. Bruce Liles in his A Basic Grammar of Modern English (1979), pages 63 - 64, says that some "grammarians have said that these verbs ["ask" and "teach"] take two direct objects; however, the semantic relationships are not the same for both objects, and the word order suggests that the first is an indirect [my emphasis] object."

 

[HeartShape]

No.

Why is it not grammatical?

Some analsysis:

A transitive always have a passive and vice versa. We should be able to switch the subjects and direct objects around.

This test validates that we can reverse the objects.

1.

a) I have been asked by Billy. (Passive form)
b) Billy has asked me advice. (Transitive active form)

c) Semantically = SV+DO+IO = Billy has asked me advice

But then according to the grammar rules the first object is considered an indirect object and the second a direct object. This breaks the rules for this one. "Me" cannot be a direct object if we are to follow this rule.

2.

a) My advice has been asked for. (Passive form)
b) Billy has asked me for my advice. (Transitive active form)

c) Semantically = SV+DO+prep = Billy has asked me for my advice.

Third test we can prove that "me" is indeed a direct object, and it doesn't violate the indirect/direct object because there is only one object. According to this rule this semantic relationship has been satisfied.

I think this test actually shows "me" satisfied as a direct object rather than an indirect object. If we compare both examples (1b) and (2b) they are both in the same in context. The only clear differences in both examples are (1c) and (2c).


3.

a) A question has been asked by Billy. (Passive form)
b) Billy has asked me a question. (Transitive active form)

c) Semantically = SV+IO+DO = Billy has asked me a question.

An indirect and direct objects satisfies this standard rule. No violations.

I'm not sure if there is such a standard rule that exist for (c) but it seems there is. I don't actually see a problem with example 1 because the meaning is still clear. It does seem people are using the rules in (c) to determine the acceptance of the grammar for this type of syntax.

What is so puzzling is that in example (3), "me" takes the position of an indirect object from example (2).

 

[jutfrank]

Why is it not grammatical?

Although you can say ask a question, you can't say ask advice. You have to say ask for advice.

 

[HeartShape]

Although you can say ask a question, you can't say ask advice. You have to say ask for advice.

You are actually right. I was going to correct it but decided not to. I think this type of sentence can only be used informally in conversation as an elliptical sentence.

 

[Phaedrus]

Hello again, everybody,

I haven't forgotten about this thread, which has become most interesting; I'm just very busy right now. I haven't yet had an opportunity to study those pages you referred me to in Huddleston and Pullum (2002), Piscean, and I very much want to do so before venturing to say anything more related to what we had been talking about. I'd also like to review Quirk et al.'s (1985) position, which I mentioned before only on the basis of memory. In the meantime, it is gratifying to see these wonderful references provided by TheParser.

Although you can say ask a question, you can't say ask advice. You have to say ask for advice.

I agree with you about that for the most part, jutfrank. I wonder, though. Would your sense of the badness of ask advice change if we put a possessive determiner in front of advice? As a native speaker of American English, I have no problem with sentences like He asked my advice, I asked his advice, etc. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) returns results for sentences like those -- not many, but some. Even the definite article seems possible to me -- provided an of-phrase follows: They asked the advice of the Cardinal.

 

[jutfrank]

I agree with you about that for the most part, jutfrank. I wonder, though. Would your sense of the badness of ask advice change if we put a possessive determiner in front of advice? As a native speaker of American English, I have no problem with sentences like He asked my advice, I asked his advice, etc. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) returns results for sentences like those -- not many, but some. Even the definite article seems possible to me -- provided an of-phrase follows: They asked the advice of the Cardinal.

Yes, I agree with all of that.

 

[TheParser]

As a native speaker of American English, I have no problem with sentences like He asked my advice, I asked his advice, etc.

NOT A TEACHER


Do you feel that some/many Americans would also accept "He asked me my advice"?

Since I'm not a teacher, I shan't/won't express my opinion.

 

[Phaedrus]

NOT A TEACHER

I always find that ironic. In my opinion, some of the best information about English grammar available on online ESL forums has issued from your keystrokes. You have no idea how many grammar works I've acquired over the years because of references you've made. It was also you who got me going on the shall-will distinction.

Do you feel that some/many Americans would also accept "He asked me my advice"?

I accept it, and feel that others would. That structure does seem less common to me than the one without the first object ("me"). I wasn't able to find any information about it in Quirk et al. (1985) or in a valency dictionary I have; however, I was able to find something about it in the second volume of Professor Curme's grammar!

III. DOUBLE ACCUSATIVE
1. Accusative of the Person and Accusative of the Thing. This construction is now in common usage reduced to the verbs ask, lead, take, envy: 'I asked him his name' (or the price, or the reason, or the way). 'Ask the cabman the fare.' 'He led them a lively dance' (or chase). 'She leads him a dog's life.' I took her a drive.' 'I envy him his luck.'

-- A Grammar of the English Language, Volume 2: Syntax (section 15 III 1), by George Curme. Verbatim: Connecticut, 1931.

This is amazing. It is news to me that "He led them a lively dance," "She leads him a dog's life," and "I took her a drive" are English. If I were editing a document with those sentences, I would add a preposition to each one, especially "I took her a drive," which I should have assumed was ungrammatical. I'd say, "I took her for (or on) a drive."

Could this be the type of construction Paul Roberts had in mind in 1954, in Understanding Grammar, when he gave the example "He ran me a race"? (I might be misremembering the pronouns.) I have never seen or heard that construction in the wild, either -- with "run a race," that is.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives definitions for both constructions with ask. Examples include:

- "I asked her her maiden name." (1862 G. Borrow Wild Wales III. v. 41)
- " I'll get bar work,..they never ask your age." (1999 R. T. Davies Queer as Folk: Scripts Episode 8. 200)

Naturally, the OED does not pass judgment on either construction. I can't tell whether Professor Curme deemed sentences like "I asked his name/advice" incorrect. Would he have said that that was colloquial English for "I asked him his advice/name," or did he accept both constructions?

Here's what I find at the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA):

"asked his name": 34
"asked him his name": 18

"asked my advice": 9
"asked me my advice": 1

P.S. I apologize for how long it has taken me to respond. I hardly had a minute to spare last week.